Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

What are you talking about? I asked a simple question, and you decided to give a smart-ass response. I'm not trying to feel superior to or get a rise out of anyone. All you had to do was say something like "because that line is crap and they are in no danger of losing their trademark" and that would have been the end of it.

This has nothing to do with capitalism. Tamu has no legal claim. If you disagree, explain. My point is that suit was brought despite it being rather obvious that there is no merit, which is abusive behavior. The systemic problem, if one exists, is that Tamu risks nothing in bringing the suit other than bad press. So, the Bills fan did exactly what he should have.

Wrong - the Bills fan was either ignorant or incompetent of the law that he was breaking and thus he is guilty. You can't just a name or say anything in this day in time without knowing that so type of retribution may happen. He should not have used the 12th man name and that is what he did wrong.

A trademark is a trademark period and no matter how you try and twist and turn it the bottom line is the Bills fan infringed on the A&M trademark.

If A&M allows anyone to use their trademarked name of the 12th man they could eventually lose the trademark. If you own a trademark it is your responsibility to make sure that you are the one and only sole proprietor of that name. As owner you must take due diligence to protect that name as well.

I believe some people in this post have lost perspective because of their prejudice and/or bias views because of disabilities or because of a like /dislike of a sports team.

Wrong - the Bills fan was either ignorant or incompetent of the law that he was breaking and thus he is guilty. You can't just a name or say anything in this day in time without knowing that so type of retribution may happen. He should not have used the 12th man name and that is what he did wrong.

A trademark is a trademark period and no matter how you try and twist and turn it the bottom line is the Bills fan infringed on the A&M trademark.

If A&M allows anyone to use their trademarked name of the 12th man they could eventually lose the trademark. If you own a trademark it is your responsibility to make sure that you are the one and only sole proprietor of that name. As owner you must take due diligence to protect that name as well.

I believe some people in this post have lost perspective because of their prejudice and/or bias views because of disabilities or because of a like /dislike of a sports team.

^^sorry if that comes off as dickish. I'm just tired of writing long posts about the law in this thread. Feel free to provide an opposing argument based on the applicable law (although this thread has probably run its course).

Wrong - the Bills fan was either ignorant or incompetent of the law that he was breaking and thus he is guilty. You can't just a name or say anything in this day in time without knowing that so type of retribution may happen. He should not have used the 12th man name and that is what he did wrong.

A trademark is a trademark period and no matter how you try and twist and turn it the bottom line is the Bills fan infringed on the A&M trademark.

If A&M allows anyone to use their trademarked name of the 12th man they could eventually lose the trademark. If you own a trademark it is your responsibility to make sure that you are the one and only sole proprietor of that name. As owner you must take due diligence to protect that name as well.

I believe some people in this post have lost perspective because of their prejudice and/or bias views because of disabilities or because of a like /dislike of a sports team.

^^sorry if that comes off as dickish. I'm just tired of writing long posts about the law in this thread. Feel free to provide an opposing argument based on the applicable law (although this thread has probably run its course).

You stated in your first post in this thread that the 12th man is just a group of cheering fans.

It's not.

I touched on some of the details earlier this morning which, to me, seems like it takes a lot out of your argument they don't have the right to take a stand on this matter.

You stated in your first post in this thread that the 12th man is just a group of cheering fans.

It's not.

I touched on some of the details earlier this morning which, to me, seems like it takes a lot out of your argument they don't have the right to take a stand on this matter.

Run a quick google search on the 12th Man Foundation.

I did see your earlier post and should've responded. While this information is interesting and might strengthen certain potential trademark claims against would-be defendants, I don't see how it helps TAMU in this particular situation. In an earlier post, I provided a rough (and long) sketch of the legal landscape, emphasizing that this particular case would be a claim for dilution. The two problems I identify there shouldn't be affected by the information you've provided. Most importantly, the use of "12th man" in this instance is non-commercial, which is exempted by the applicable anti-dilution laws. I also think the mark involved probably can't meet the "fame" requirement, but I would need to support that with longer argument.

I think folks just have an exaggerated view of the protection offered by trademark. While popular media can be blamed for contributing to this misunderstanding by suggesting that people can monopolize use of nicknames and catchphrases, the protection afforded by law is much more circumscribed. Holding a trademark does not entail exclusive use of the mark, especially when the mark is just a couple of non-fanciful words that the public meaningfully uses to refer to things other than a singular company's commercial product.

In any case, I encourage folks to actually check out the applicable statutes and case law. Trademark is an interesting but widely misunderstood area of law. The 2006 Federal Trademark Dilution Revision Act is what would govern here (I don't see any basis for an actual infringement claim).

I did see your earlier post and should've responded. While this information is interesting and might strengthen certain potential trademark claims against would-be defendants, I don't see how it helps TAMU in this particular situation. In an earlier post, I provided a rough (and long) sketch of the legal landscape, emphasizing that this particular case would be a claim for dilution. The two problems I identify there shouldn't be affected by the information you've provided. Most importantly, the use of "12th man" in this instance is non-commercial, which is exempted by the applicable anti-dilution laws. I also think the mark involved probably can't meet the "fame" requirement, but I would need to support that with longer argument.

I think folks just have an exaggerated view of the protection offered by trademark. While popular media can be blamed for contributing to this misunderstanding by suggesting that people can monopolize use of nicknames and catchphrases, the protection afforded by law is much more circumscribed. Holding a trademark does not entail exclusive use of the mark, especially when the mark is just a couple of non-fanciful words that the public meaningfully uses to refer to things other than a singular company's commercial product.

In any case, I encourage folks to actually check out the applicable statutes and case law. Trademark is an interesting but widely misunderstood area of law. The 2006 Federal Trademark Dilution Revision Act is what would govern here (I don't see any basis for an actual infringement claim).

Please, I am in no way attacking you. Sort of looking for education of sort. But you say trademark doesn't include "exclusive use of the mark" and I do see that in some instances. Georgia and the Green Bay Pakers have the same "G" on the helmet and both are trademarked.

But I gaurantee if I could get ahold of variation of www.i'mlovinit.com and put naked pics of my gf on there, etc. I gaurantee McDonalds would have a fit and rightfully so....I'm lovin it is a TM.

I'll admit, I don't even know where the term "12th man" orginated. I do remember hearing "12th man" in gradeschool before I knew what TAMU was but that doesn't mean anything. But I feel that in this instance, the Bills fan seems to have taken it.

Please, I am in no way attacking you. Sort of looking for education of sort. But you say trademark doesn't include "exclusive use of the mark" and I do see that in some instances. Georgia and the Green Bay Pakers have the same "G" on the helmet and both are trademarked.

But I gaurantee if I could get ahold of variation of www.i'mlovinit.com and put naked pics of my gf on there, etc. I gaurantee McDonalds would have a fit and rightfully so....I'm lovin it is a TM.

I'll admit, I don't even know where the term "12th man" orginated. I do remember hearing "12th man" in gradeschool before I knew what TAMU was but that doesn't mean anything. But I feel that in this instance, the Bills fan seems to have taken it.

Domain names are covered by some specific laws that don't apply to trademark more generally, and I don't want to make things even more complicated. But, although McDonald's may have trademark rights in connection with that slogan, the exclusive use of that phrase is limited to circumstances in which a competitor might use it for branding purposes or perhaps other use that blurs or tarnishes the value of the slogan. And when it comes to those last two situations, the legal analysis can turn on a number of factors. Ultimately, McD's needs to show that the use has real potential to cause harm or damage to its brand in order to stop the use. And, even then, it may not succeed if the use is exempted under the statute (like noncommercial use, fair use, parody, etc.).

I mean, you could name a movie I'm Loving It and have no basis for liability (although they would sue regardless, I bet). The movie Supersize Me was probably sued, although I don't know how that shook out. First Amendment protects parody and satire, so in a perfect world, it should be safe. On the other hand, you couldn't use that slogan for your local burger hut. Those are relatively clear cases, while some others can be more uncertain. I think TAMU's case is quite weak since an exemption applies and the mark isn't famous like the McDonalds slogan (which is a requirement for so-called "dilution" liability).

Alright, this is my last word on the subject. Promise. Oh wait, 2 more. Go Bills!

"Trademark dilution involves situations in which consumers associate
an established, famous trademark with a newer trademark, even if it is
clear that the marks represent different goods or manufacturers."

It may be A&M thinks of itself in a higher light than society in general. The domain name would make me think of A&M. So, in my case, that fits with dilution and the definition of a trademark. I didn't know there were different laws governing domain names.

It's an interesting story for me because of its similarity to a case recently settled out of court. The houndstooth pattern is a trademark now owned by the University of Alabama. That case dealt with a Georgia company using the logo "Houndstooth Mafia" and the accusation the company was benefitting from the "use of the pattern on unlicensed merchandise was likely to confuse consumers and allow the company to profit from the good will that football fans feel for Bryant and his legacy at Alabama."

Since it was settled out of court there's no way to know how it would have been ruled upon. I can see similarities.